OCZ pairs the Indilinx Barefoot 3 with
Toshiba NAND
CZ’s enthusiast-aimed Vector 150 and
mainstream Vertex 460 drives, despite their different target users, use very
similar hardware. The difference is that the Vertex 460’s Barefoot 3 controller
I clocked slightly lower. This controller is an 8-channel model that uses an
ARM Cortex core and an OCZ Aragon coprocessor.
OCZ Vector 150
Another difference is that the Toshiba
19nm NAND modules in the Vector 150 series are more heavily validated. As such,
those drives are rated for higher endurance – five years of 50GB/day host
writes (even more than Samsung’s SSD 840 Pro), compared to three years of
20GB/day on the Vertex 460. All of the drives include a copy of Acronis True
Image HD.
OCZ Vector 150 structure
Sadly, though, none is compatible with
the Opal 2.0 and IEEE-1667 specifications, so hardware-accelerated encryption,
such as that in BitLocker, is off the cards.
Of the three drives, sequential read
performance is best on the Vector 150 240GB, which hits 519.8MB/sec in AS SSD
and 537.4MB/sec in CrystalDiskMark. This latter benchmark sees more middling
performance from the other two drives, but sequential write performance is more
convincing. In both tests, the trio is clustered closely together, with speeds
just below 500MB/sec in AS SSD and around 520MB/sec in CrystalDiskMark – only
Samsung drives ever overtake them in either case.
Single-queue-depth random reads are
the weakest aspect of the Barefoot controller. While the 480GB Vector 150
manages to maintain mid-league status with 29.6MB/sec (AS SSD) and 32MB/sec
(CrystalDiskMark), the two others only manage speeds of around 25MB/sec and
27MB/sec. By comparison, Samsung’s SSD 840 Evo drives can hit over 40MB/sec in
both tests. Thankfully, single-queue-depth random write speeds are simply
outstanding. In both AS SSD and CrystalDiskMark, the Barefoot 3 drives top the
chart in these tests.
OCZ Verdict 460
In the higher queue-depth tests, we
again see better write performance than read speed, although read speeds still
see some dramatic improvements, with the 480GB Vector 150 y having the best
result of 381.2MB/sec in AS SSD’s 64-queue-depth read test. Samsung’s SSD 840
Evo and SSD 840 Pro drives give the OCZ drives a run for their money with high
queue-depth writes, but in both benchmarks, a Vector 150 drive secures the top
spot.
Despite five chart-topping synthetic
figures from the Vector 150s, though, real-world performance is fairly
mediocre. The three OCZ drives are clustered around the middle of PCMark 7’s
Starting Applications test – all of the Samsung, Toshiba and Plextor drives are
ahead. The Gaming test is the biggest letdown, however. Even the Vector 150 480GB
only manages 115.9MB/sec here, while the Vertex 460, with 112.6MB/sec, is in
second to last place. The Vector 150 drives are also only average at best with
Windows booting, while the Vertex 460 is much better with its 13-second boot
time.
OCZ Verdict 460 Structure
As a saving grace, all three drives
come out on top in the Iometer tests. The Barefoot 3 controller comes into its
own under this sustained battery of high queue-depth mixed workloads, where
even the down-clocked Vertex 460 fends off all other competition.
Conclusion
The poor to average performance
observed in PCMark, BootRacer and single-queue-depth random shows that these
drives aren’t the best choice for the majority of home users and enthusiasts.
They’re also costly – the 480GB Vector 150 has the joint highest cost per GB at
84p, while even the 63p Vertex 460 240GB is above average. Nevertheless, the
excellent high queue-depth and mixed workload performance makes the Vector 150
drives fine candidates for heavy-use scenarios, such as workstations or file
servers, where the high endurance rating is also worth the extra cost.
Verdict
These drives have some outstanding
performance, but they’re less impressive in the most critical areas for home
users.
